She dabbed away tears as Justice Kristine Eidsvik spoke of the loss of her child, but Tamara Lovett showed no outward emotion Friday as she was sentenced to three years in prison for his death.

Eidsvik said their were no mitigating circumstances that would justify the one-year sentence proposed by Lovett's lawyer, Alain Hepner.

But the Court of Queen's Bench judge agreed with Hepner that the four to five years sought by Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak was excessive.

Eidsvik noted any punishment will pale compared to the loss Lovett suffered for her own ignorance in not getting seven-year-old Ryan proper medical care before he died March 2, 2013, from "overwhelming sepsis."

"Basically every internal organ was affected," she said, of the massive infection, which could have been treated with antibiotics.

"He died an excruciating, unnecessary death."

Eidsvik said Lovett, 48, could blame no one but herself for the loss of her son.

"Her failure to bring him to a medical doctor caused his death," the judge said.

"Her behaviour absolutely met the test for criminal negligence."

Eidsvik noted that during sentencing submissions in September, Lovett addressed the court, indicating she no longer held the distrust in the medical system which led her to treat Ryan with oil of oregano and dandelion tea.

"She indicated that she blames herself for 'not knowing better,'" the judge said.

"She hopes that others learn from her 'ignorance.'"

Eidsvik accepted that Lovett was truly saddened by her criminal behaviour.

"She expressed genuine remorse for the loss of her son," she said, as Lovett wiped away tears from her eyes as she sat in the prisoner's box.

Ryan Lovett in an undated Facebook image.

Outside court, Hak said even though Lovett's sentence was less than the punishment he sought, the three years should act as a deterrent to others who might not seek out appropriate medical treatment for their sick children.

"I think going to a federal penitentiary is a pretty significant wake-up call and I would think whether it was three, or four years it wouldn't make a difference with how the public will view that," he said.

"The message is so clear and that is that if your child is not getting better you are legally and morally bound to take that child to an actual doctor for actual medical care," Hak said.

He said although Eidsvik suggested Lovett may not have completely eschewed her holistic medicine beliefs Hak said at least Lovett has gained some insight into how wrong her actions were.

"All I can go by is what Tamara Lovett told the court ... whether she's gained total insight is probably debatable.

"It's less of an issue because she doesn't have care of children so even if she maintains those beliefs that will only affect her."

Before sentencing Lovett ruled on an application by Hepner to enter a judicial stay based on the length of time it took to bring his client to justice.

Hepner had suggested Lovett's Charter right to be tried within a reasonable period of time was breached and the prosecution against her should have been thrown out.

But Eidsvik agreed with Hak that in the circumstances surrounding Lovett's prosecution, which began before the Supreme Court handed down its decision setting hard deadlines for how long cases can take to proceed.

Despite the favourable ruling, Hak said more needs to be done to avoid charges being stayed due to delay.

"We clearly have an under-resourced justice system and we have a significant lack of Queen's Bench justices, that has to be addressed in order to move forward and actually comply with the Jordan deadline."